alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund II Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



1. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
2. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
3. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|Date: February 21, 2008 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------
|                        | John P. Manning            
|                        | Principal Executive Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.12



TRUST AGREEMENT
 FOR ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC. 
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
FIRST AMENDMENT
This FIRST AMENDMENT to the Trust Agreement for Alliant Techsystems Inc. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan (the “Trust Agreement”) is entered into as of this 28th day of January 2013 by Alliant Techsystems Inc., as grantor, (“ATK”) and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee (the “Trustee”).
ATK and the Trustee entered into the Trust Agreement as of January 1, 2003; Section 9.1 of the Trust Agreement provides, inter alia, that the Trust Agreement can be amended by a written instrument executed by ATK and the Trustee; and the Trust Agreement has never been amended.
ATK wishes to amend the Trust Agreement to clarify and streamline the administrative process by which benefits can be paid to participants from the trust fund under the Trust Agreement.
ATK hereby certifies that no Change of Control (as defined in Section 1.3 of the Trust Agreement) has occurred as of the date first written above.
Effective as of the date first written above, Section 6.5 is hereby amended to add a new Section 6.5(c) to read as follows:
“(c)    upon receipt of a written certification from ATK (or, after a Change of Control, from the independent public accountants for ATK) on or before January 31st of any year that ATK paid a specified dollar amount of benefits directly to Participants or their Beneficiaries as they became due under the terms of the Plan (pursuant to Section 6.1 hereof) within the prior calendar year, the Trustee shall distribute such specified dollar amount to ATK as a reimbursement for such direct payments.”
In all respects not amended, the Trust Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed.








Page 1 of 1






IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed by their duly authorized officers as of the date first written above.






ALLIANT TECHSYSTEMS INC.
By:  /s/Judith Mares            
Judith Mares
Title:    Chief Investment Officer
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
By:    /s/ Nic Malone            
Nic Maylone
Title:    Vice President and Relationship Manager




Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-2161

KUMAR HARSH,

Petitioner,

versus

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration

Appeals. (A29-914-503)

Submitted: February 6, 2001 Decided: February 15, 2001

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred L. Robertson, Springfield, Virginia, for Petitioner. David

W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey L. Bernstein, Senior

Litigation Counsel, John L. Davis, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Kumar Harsh petitions for review of a final order of the Board

of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his application for asylum

and withholding of deportation. We have reviewed the administrative record and the Board’s August 8, 2000, decision and conclude

that Harsh’s appeal to this court, filed September 8, 2000, was

filed one day late under the applicable transitional rules of the

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996

(IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009. See IIRIRA §

309(c)(4)(C); 8 U.S.C.A. § 1252(b)(1) (West 1999) (stating that petitions for review must be filed no later than thirty days after

the date of the final order of removal).

We are therefore compelled to dismiss this appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 10.24


               First Amendment to Revolving Loan Agreement between
         AmSouth Bank and Surgical Laser Technologies dated May 31, 2000

RESOLVED, that, effective December 31, 2001, AmSouth Bank and Surgical Laser
Technologies hereby declare and certify by the signatures indicated below, that
Article VII and all the contents represented in this section as found on page 20
of the Loan Agreement dated May 31, 2000, should be amended and restated as
follows:

                                   Article VII
                               FINANCIAL COVENANTS

So long as the Note shall remain unpaid or the Bank shall have any Commitment
under this Agreement:

Section 7.01 Traditional Cash Flow Coverage.

     The Borrower shall maintain traditional cash flow coverage of 1.25X as
measured over the one year period beginning the first day of the Borrowers then
beginning Fiscal Year and ending on the last day of the Borrower's same Fiscal
Year. Traditional Cash Flow coverage is defined as net income plus depreciation
expense plus amortization expense plus total interest expense minus dividends
divided by the prior period current portion of long term debt plus interest
expense.

Section 7.02 Interest Coverage.

     The Borrower shall maintain interest coverage of 2.25X as measured over the
one year period beginning the first day of the Borrowers then beginning Fiscal
Year and ending on the last day of the Borrower's same Fiscal Year. Interest
Coverage is defined as net income plus interest expense plus depreciation
expense divided by interest expense.

Section 7.03 Leverage Ration.

     The Borrower shall maintain at all times a ration of total Debt to tangible
net worth of not more than .60 to 1.

Accepted and Agreed upon this 20th day of February, 2002:


AmSouth Bank                                   Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc.

By: /s/ Rhett D. Jordan                        By: /s/ Michael R. Stewart
    --------------------                           ----------------------
RHETT D. JORDAN                                MICHAEL R. STEWART
Vice President                                 President and CEO

                                               By: /s/ Davis Woodward
                                               Davis Woodward
                                               Chief Financial Officer

                                               By: /s/ Craig K. Carra
                                               Craig Carra
                                               Controller
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

State and Tribal Resources and

Additional Information

Last Modified: 

Print

State/Tribal Plans and Resources

NASAHO and NASPHV Measures to Minimize Influenza Transmission at Swine

Exhibitions 

Emergency Cooperative Agreement Guidance: Financing the Response (April 11,

2022) 

Additional Information

Economic Impacts of Foreign Animal Disease

Animal Disease Information

Foreign Animal Diseases - The USAHA Grey Book (2008)

Archive: FAD Investigation Reports

Document
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

APHIS and AMS Geospatial Hub

Last Modified: 

Print
#### State v. Vandenberg

17304

11/14/96

Affirmed
#### Ishmael BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 4631.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Nov. 16, 1979.

John Hagey, Asst. Public Defender, Fairbanks, and Brian Shortell, Public Defender, Anchorage, for appellant.

Harry L. Davis, Dist. Atty., Fairbanks, and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

A twenty-four year old man, Ishmael Baker, was sitting at a phonograph booth in the public library of Fairbanks, Alaska.1 A six year old boy came up to him and asked him if he had seen the boy’s cut-out paper cat, which was mislaid.

Baker said he had not seen the cat. He picked the boy up and set him down on a shelf of the booth and began tickling him about the midriff. He pulled the boy’s shirt up, unzipped his fly, and tickled his penis.

The boy’s mother came by, looking for him. She saw the boy’s head above the side of the booth and called to him. When he did not immediately come to her, she approached; Baker put the boy down and she saw her child’s clothes mussed and fly unzipped.

Baker denied any wrongdoing. He was indicted for committing a lewd and lascivious act on a child, in violation of AS 11.15.-134.2 He was tried and convicted by a jury *798and sentenced to four years imprisonment. He appeals the sentence.

Baker’s prior record includes a felony and several misdemeanors as well as numerous juvenile incidents. A psychological evaluation performed prior to sentencing indicates Baker suffers from chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia. The psychiatrist says he has a “chronic, severe psychiatric disorder,” a “major psychosis” and is “potentially dangerous.” Baker is also an alcohol abuser, who is an unskilled laborer and has a sparse and sporadic employment history.

A substantial prison term with appropriate rehabilitative efforts will serve both the constitutional goals of sentencing: reformation and protection of the public. Baker is clearly in need of substantial rehabilitative efforts, and he is equally clearly a continuing threat to the public security. The sentence imposed included an order that Baker be given psychiatric treatment while incarcerated. We believe it should also have included a recommendation that alcohol rehabilitation treatment be provided, and should be modified accordingly.

The sentence is AFFIRMED, and the case REMANDED for entry of a modified judgment.

1

. Baker was given a breathalyzer test within approximately one hour of the occurrence. The test yielded a result of .21 percent blood alcohol.

2

. AS 11.15.134(a) provides:

> A person who commits a lewd or lascivious act, including an act constituting another *798crime, upon or with the body of a child under 16 years of age, intending to arouse, appeal to, or gratify his lust, passions, or sexual desires, or the lust, passions, or sexual desires of the child is punishable by imprisonment for not more than 10 years nor less than one year.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

USDA's National Animal Health

Monitoring System Conducts Third

National U.S. Small Enterprise Swine

Study

Print

In 2021, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) National Animal Health

Monitoring System, in collaboration with the USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics

Service, conducted its third national study of U.S. small enterprise swine operations.

Approximately 5,000 swine operations from 38 states, accounting for about 95

percent of U.S. swine operations with fewer than 1,000 pigs, were asked to

participate. Small enterprise swine production is a growing sector of the U.S. swine

industry due to its role as a primary supplier of many niche-market products.

Objectives of the study included:

Describe current health and production practices on small enterprise

operations.

Describe trends in swine health and disease management practices on small

enterprise swine operations.

Characterize movement, mortality, and slaughter channels on small enterprise

swine operations.

Examine differences in marketing practices and movements on small and large

U.S. swine operations.
The results of the study are now available as a dashboard. To go to the report,

navigate to https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalhealth/monitoringand-surveillance/nahms/nahms_swine_studies and scroll down to the “Swine

Studies” button. This will take you to the list of reports and associated materials

national swine studies have produced over the years. This dashboard can be

accessed by clicking “Swine 2021 Part III: Reference of Management Practices on

Small-Enterprise Swine Operations in the United States.”

Note: We are working through a visualization problem unique to tablets, particularly

those who use Safari as a browser. Additionally, if you use Microsoft Edge you may

be asked to log into a Tableau server. Clearing your cache in Edge (Settings-Privacy

search and services-Clear browsing data) should fix that. If not, please contact

Charles Haley at 970-494-7216 or: charles.a.haley@usda.gov.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 15.1




May 6, 2004


American HomePatient, Inc.
Brentwood, TN

Re: Registration Statements No. 333-56313 and No. 333-56317


With respect to the subject registration statements, we acknowledge our
awareness of the use therein of our report dated March 6, 2004 related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant to Rule 436 under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Act"), such report
is not considered part of a registration statement prepared or certified by an
accountant, or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the
meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.

/s/ KPMG LLP


Nashville, Tennessee
17482

#### State v. Maeda

December 6, 1996

Order No. 96-35

Affirmed
SOP EM - 18 Page 1 of 1

Observing Bald Eagles at Nest Sites

Revision: #5 Replaces: 2/25/10 Effective: 9/3/19

1. Purpose and Scope: In 2007, the bald eagle was removed from protection under the

Endangered Species Act, but remains federally protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle

Protection Act. Prior guidance in this SOP was based on consultations under the Endangered

Species Act. That guidance is now replaced by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations

that can be found National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (https://www.fws.gov/birds/

management/managed-species/eagle-management.php). Consult Michael K. Hennessey or Kai 

Caraher of the PPQ Environmental Compliance Team when eagles are a concern for a Program.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 29, 2013

h0522

Order 

Clerk

May 29, 2013

146533

LINDSEY R. GRAY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146533

COA: 303536

Genesee CC: 10-094302-NO

GARY A. CHROSTOWSKI,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 6, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
January 28, 1999

21213

#### Clendenin v. State

Affirmed
July 18, 2007

26682

#### GE Capital Hawaii, Inc. v. Shanghai Inv. Co., Inc.

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Snails and Slugs FAQ's

Last Modified: 

Print

Why is the snail Rumina decollata prohibited? 

Although Rumina decollata has been used as a biological control agent to control

other snail pest species, it has also been proven to be a plant pest.

Why is the Giant African Snail prohibited?

The Giant African Snail poses a threat to both humans and plants. This snail is not

only strictly prohibited from entering the United States but is removed when

discovered.

How long is a permit valid?

 Permits for snails are generally valid for three years.

Do I need a USDA, APHIS, PPQ permit to use

snails and slugs in my classroom for educational

purposes?
Yes. A PPQ 526 permit is required if the snails or slugs move across state lines or

imported into the United States to get to your school.

Q. Why does the USDA regulate the snails or

slugs that I use in my classroom for educational

purposes?

Some snails and slugs are not established in certain areas of the United States and

the USDA attempts to prevent the establishment of exotic species to protect the

environment and reduce risk to agricultural crops.
#### Philip Bosco, Plaintiff, *v.*Philip J. Alicino, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 23, 1959.

*Irving F. Cohen*for plaintiff.

*Bolnick <S> Chambers*for defendant.

*368Aron Steuer, J.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff had made certain loans and investments in a restaurant business and that these had become due. There is no allegation as to whom the loans were made or what the nature of the investment was or how it did or could become due. The next allegation is that defendant acquired an interest in the restaurant business and was desirous that plaintiff refrain from asserting his claim against the restaurant. Then it is alleged that to induce the plaintiff to forego suit defendant entered into an agreement which is attached to the complaint. When the agreement is referred to it is seen that there is nothing in it about withholding suit against the restaurant. In it the plaintiff agrees not to sue the defendant and the defendant agrees to pay the plaintiff $14,000 from the first profits received by the defendant from the restaurant. Defendant further agrees not to sell his interest in a certain corporation and not to allow the corporation to sell any restaurant it was conducting without the prior written consent of the plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the restaurant was sold.

It might seem as if the discrepancies between the complaint and the agreement are inadvertent errors. But as they are repeated in the brief it must be assumed that the allegations are advisedly made. Where a complaint and a contract alleged in it and attached to it conflict, the provisions of the contract govern. The contract provides that the plaintiff will not sue the defendant. There is no time limitation and no exception is made in favor of breach of the written contract. Even if this could be implied from the agreement the complaint is still faulty. It does not allege that there were any grounds on which plaintiff could have sued anyone. The supposed indebtedness is a mere conclusory allegation, it being impossible to determine from the complaint who was indebted to plaintiff or why. The alleged forbearance against the restaurant, presumably the restaurant corporation, is meaningless because the contract does not provide for forbearance against it.

The motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed with leave to plaintiff to serve an amended complaint on or before February 2,1959, on payment of $10 costs.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: LaTrina Kingsbury v. A.C. Automotive, Inc. and Maria G. Martinez

Appellate case number: 01-14-00205-CV

Trial court case number: 1025892

Trial court: Co Civil Ct at Law No 1 of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 2, 2015

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Keyes, Higley, Brown

Date: April 16, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
ON PAGES 3 AND 4 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE, AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,720
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  784,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          24,936
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,667
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 852,256
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                        349,122
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           381
<OTHER-SE>                                     343,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   852,256
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                63,664
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,701
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,400
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,563
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,789
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,789
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        


</TABLE>